<p>Oh not just that, emilybee. Everything that goes wrong anywhere in the entire healthcare system will be blamed on ACA. Nonetheless, this kind of misinformation sounds really scary and persuasive and it needs to be countered with facts, just for the record.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I gather you prefer the old system, where the sick get screwed.</p>
<p>We are all just one stroke of luck away from going from “healthy” to “sick.”</p>
<p>And the healthy/insured are already subsidizing the sick/uninsured now–something that seems to be forgotten in all of this. The idea behind the ACA is getting everyone into the pool so the cost per person is ultimately smaller, correct? The growth of premiums is expected to start slowing once the full law is in effect, as I understand it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Employer-based coverage reigns by a very wide margin.</p>
<p>Here is a snapshot of where non-elderly (under 65) Americans get their health insurance, based on the 2012 census (military excluded):</p>
<p>Employer 156.5 million people 58.9%</p>
<p>Medicaid 44.1 million people 16.6%</p>
<p>Medicare 7.3 million people 2.8%</p>
<p>Individual 16.8 million people 6.3%</p>
<p>Uninsured 49.9 million people 18.8%</p>
<p>[Health</a> Insurance 101](<a href=“http://101.communitycatalyst.org/basics/overview?id=0002]Health”>http://101.communitycatalyst.org/basics/overview?id=0002)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is one of our biggest problems.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought this was the big problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh yes, it is … I guess you didn’t read the excerpts from the filing I posted. The preferred rates being abolished. BC had to totally change its rate structure because of the ACA.
My increases the last 3-4 years have been about 5%, next year 50%. Those ARE the facts Lasma…</p>
<p>lookingforward…the rates were once up on the BC/BS site, but they are now gone.</p>
<p>Of interest in those figures to me, was the number of uninsured. According to the source I posted earlier,[High</a> Risk Pools for Health Coverage, State and Federal (State Implementation Report)](<a href=“http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/high-risk-pools-for-health-coverage.aspx]High”>http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/high-risk-pools-for-health-coverage.aspx), a HHS study concluded that 1.29 million people have pre-existing conditions, of which 375,000 were expected to need federal high-risk pool coverage. (110,000 have signed on since June 2010). I assume this means that the other 900,000+ have access to other coverage.</p>
<p>That leads me to conclude that 48.7 - 49.5 million people are not insured for reasons other than pre-existing conditions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…well…when the RI Health Ins Comm office states so, I probably should believe it…</p>
<p>And some of those uninsured were only uninsured temporarily. They were between jobs or had applied for Medicaid, etc.</p>
<p>“That leads me to conclude that 48.7 - 49.5 million people are not insured for reasons other than pre-existing conditions”</p>
<p>Of course they are not insured because of other reasons - mostly because their employers do not offer subsidized insurance at all and they cannot afford to purchase it on their own. So, what would you do to provide affordable insurance to these people?</p>
<p>“well…when the RI Health Ins Comm office states so, I probably should believe it.”</p>
<p>“Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, said its average premium boost for individual consumers will be around 18%—about the same as it would have been without the federal law.”</p>
<p>They stated it would be about the same without the federal law. Do you have some other BC/BS statement which says that the increase is due to ACA?</p>
<p>Imo, this is a very good article on how the economics of ACA is good for everyone - even those of us who presently have employer subsidized health care. </p>
<p><a href=“For Obamacare to Work, Everyone Must Be In - The New York Times”>For Obamacare to Work, Everyone Must Be In - The New York Times;
<p>Emilybee…yes, I have the letter they sent me. It lists the ACA as one of the 2 main factors for rate increases in 2014 for the individual market.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From what I remember reading, (will find sources later - need to go do something), 80-90% of employers offer insurance to their employees. I don’t know how “affordable” it is, or how affordability is determined. </p>
<p>I have also read that Native Americans, certain religious people, and illegal immigrants are not expected to become insured under the ACA, so they will comprise a portion of that 49 million. I don’t know how much.</p>
<p>just the new taxes and fees of the ACA cause a 3.7% increase in premiums alone according to BC. Throw in the mandated change in rate structure, abolishment of underwriting, age/gender rating, ect…and you have a substantial rate increase…all because of the ACA…FACT.</p>
<p>Bay, what is your point about the high risk plans? </p>
<p>We dont need ACA because high risk plans existed or could have existed?</p>
<p>Well, there you have it. </p>
<p>Less jobs = less employer provided insurance plans</p>
<p>No job = tough to pay premiums. Of any kind, whether on exchange or individual market.</p>
<p>WA state:
[Obamacare:</a> What it will cost here | Local News | The Seattle Times](<a href=“http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021520849_planratesxml.html]Obamacare:”>http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021520849_planratesxml.html)</p>